Unless you're counting the Jennings, I count only nine. If you are indeed counting that award, then Hasek had seven such seasons, and that included two Hart trophies and three more finishes in the top three for that award. More, he accrued 13 awards to Roy's nine. And he accomplished this despite playing on inferior teams, and in only 12 seasons versus Roy's 18; because of the Iron Curtain, he began his career as a starting NHL goaltender at nearly 29 years of age, whereas Roy was only 20.

Actually, I wasn't counting the Jennings, because I didn't think it would be fair, considering Brian Hayward split the time and arguably got more recognition in 1987 (despite less time). Same with Hasek's additional year with the Jennings (2008). Excluding the Jennings and Stanley Cup (thereby leaving only individual recognition) would be exactly what I said: 11 seasons. And I think most would agree that his nominations were warranted by save percentage based statistics as opposed to high-GP based statistics.

I think feffan's summation of the Roy argument as being chiefly playoff-based overlooks how strong of a regular season goaltender he was (maybe one of the better ones).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crymson

Much of Hasek's NHL prime was wasted by international politics. He earned the Vezina trophy in his first two seasons as an NHL starter, and then the Vezina, Person, and Hart in both of the next two. Imagine how many awards Hasek would have accrued had he been able to play a full career in the league. Aside from Roy's Jennings and award nominations in 2001-2002, every single one of his regular seasons awards was earned before he turned 27---an age younger than Hasek was when he entered the league as a starter to begin with.

It seems virtually certain that had Hasek come into the league in his early 20s and played on good teams throughout his career, he'd today be acknowledged as the best goaltender of all time. As things stand, he's named one of the best despite missing almost the entirety of his 20s and playing much of his career on Sabres squads that ranged from mediocre to average in quality.

Actually, Hasek's first run as a starter was November and December of 1992 until he got injured long-term (which happened a lot with him). He finished the season with good numbers - though ones protected by scheduling, but didn't seem to be angling towards Vezina contention. Trying to extend his play in 1993-94 backwards across 1990-91 through 1992-93 doesn't do much for me, because he was in North America and he was given opportunities in all three years to become the starter. If he was truly in his prime (which was arguably the best of any goaltender), he probably would have landed one of the three auditions. Surely, prime Hasek is good enough to do that.

The fact that Hasek peaked in his late-20s and early-30s isn't unfathomable. Roy peaked in his early-to-mid-20s, yes, but what about Tim Thomas? What about Martin Brodeur? What about Jacques Plante, Tomas Vokoun, Bernie Parent, and Miikka Kiprusoff? Tom Barrasso was arguably at his best as a teenager. Not everyone is going to be at their best at the same age.

It comes down to how much mileage you get out of Dominik Hasek's career prior to 1990. It's entirely possible (particularly based on the three years it took to get and maintain a job while he was in Chicago and Buffalo) that if he had played in the NHL in the 1980s, he doesn't win anything - or maybe he picks up a high-GP Vezina a la 1986's John Vanbiesbrouck, another goaltender who peaked in his 30s. His best-on-best numbers were hit-or-miss, and his World Championship play was against weaker competition from North America than what was sent over when Tommy Salo matched Hasek's three-straight All-Star selections (back in Hasek's day, only five teams missed the NHL playoffs, so fewer NHL players were sent over). So maybe he picks up some NHL awards just like he picked up some Golden Hockey Sticks, but maybe they don't translate as well as your What If argument allows. What I know for sure is that the Dominik Hasek in the 1991 Canada Cup didn't resemble the one we saw in the 1998 Olympics.

When it mattered the most Roy got the job done more times than Hasek. And in the end winning is all that matters for a goalie.

The best ever goalie doesn't account solely in playoff stats or NHL careers. Hasek was dominate before he enter the NHL and by your criteria talent is judged by post season performance. Many great players have never won one cup.

Marty has the best #s, but he also had one of the best Defenses in NHL history in front of him for a large portion of his career. Had he seen more shots and his numbers stayed relatively the same, it wouldn't even be a debate.

His save % went up after the departure of Stevens and Neidermeyer until old age caught up with him. I'd say that is proof enough.

Brodeur constantly adapted his style, but if he had played Butterfly his whole career his SV% would have been much higher.

Players have said that it was tough facing Brodeur in his prime because he didn't know what he would do. He was very unpredictable in how he made the saves.

I don't mind you guys putting Brodeur behind Roy and Hasek, but to put him in a distant third is an extreme insult. Neither Roy nor Hasek played the puck all that well. Marty was a 3rd defensemen back there and was a major reason why they saw so few shots against in NJ.

His backups often saw more shots. That's not a coincidence. Several of his D-men have said their careers lasted a few years more than they expected because Marty saved them from the wear and tear of the forecheck.

His save % went up after the departure of Stevens and Neidermeyer until old age caught up with him. I'd say that is proof enough.

Brodeur constantly adapted his style, but if he had played Butterfly his whole career his SV% would have been much higher.

Players have said that it was tough facing Brodeur in his prime because he didn't know what he would do. He was very unpredictable in how he made the saves.

I don't mind you guys putting Brodeur behind Roy and Hasek, but to put him in a distant third is an extreme insult. Neither Roy nor Hasek played the puck all that well. Marty was a 3rd defensemen back there and was a major reason why they saw so few shots against in NJ.

His backups often saw more shots. That's not a coincidence. Several of his D-men have said their careers lasted a few years more than they expected because Marty saved them from the wear and tear of the forecheck.

It is most definitely not an insult. The history of hockey more than 100 years. There has been a lot of great goalies. Brodeur not being the third best of all-time is not an insult. Being the fifth best looking woman on earth doesn't mean you are ugly. Roy and Hasek are on their own tier. Then come the likes of Hall, Plante, Sawchuk, Dryden Brodeur, Tretiak. It is not an insult to be in the same tier as those guys. Although Plante might be closer to Hasek and Roy than Hall and Sawchuk.

His save % went up after the departure of Stevens and Neidermeyer until old age caught up with him. I'd say that is proof enough.

Brodeur constantly adapted his style, but if he had played Butterfly his whole career his SV% would have been much higher.

Players have said that it was tough facing Brodeur in his prime because he didn't know what he would do. He was very unpredictable in how he made the saves.

I don't mind you guys putting Brodeur behind Roy and Hasek, but to put him in a distant third is an extreme insult. Neither Roy nor Hasek played the puck all that well. Marty was a 3rd defensemen back there and was a major reason why they saw so few shots against in NJ.

His backups often saw more shots. That's not a coincidence. Several of his D-men have said their careers lasted a few years more than they expected because Marty saved them from the wear and tear of the forecheck.

I don't really think it's an insult - Marty brought puck handling skills to the table that the other two did not, and that's one reason he is so good. But the primary job of the goaltender is to stop pucks, not stick handle. Hasek and Roy were simply better at making saves. Hasek in particular held numerous SV% records and led the league in SV% 6 straight years, as opposed to Brodeur who has never led the league in SV%. Hasek also led while facing more shots/60 minutes than any other goaltender in the league (a feat no one else has ever accomplished). And he did it twice.

When people discuss "the big 4" of Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and Howe, there's a sharp drop off to whoever people consider number 5 after them. That doesn't mean that Beliveau, Hull, Richard, Jagr, or whoever you consider number 5 to be doesn't mean they were incredible players - they were - it just means there was a clear separation between them and the big 4. I feel it's the same with Hasek and Roy vs Brodeur.

His save % went up after the departure of Stevens and Neidermeyer until old age caught up with him. I'd say that is proof enough.

Brodeur constantly adapted his style, but if he had played Butterfly his whole career his SV% would have been much higher.

Players have said that it was tough facing Brodeur in his prime because he didn't know what he would do. He was very unpredictable in how he made the saves.

I don't mind you guys putting Brodeur behind Roy and Hasek, but to put him in a distant third is an extreme insult. Neither Roy nor Hasek played the puck all that well. Marty was a 3rd defensemen back there and was a major reason why they saw so few shots against in NJ.

His backups often saw more shots. That's not a coincidence. Several of his D-men have said their careers lasted a few years more than they expected because Marty saved them from the wear and tear of the forecheck.

That's a really fair point. Probably the best argument for Brodeur out there.

It comes down to how much mileage you get out of Dominik Hasek's career prior to 1990. It's entirely possible (particularly based on the three years it took to get and maintain a job while he was in Chicago and Buffalo) that if he had played in the NHL in the 1980s, he doesn't win anything

It is all possible, sure. Alternate-universe Roy could have had a mediocre career for any number of circumstances too.

However, what we do know for a fact is that Hasek won 5-straight top goalie awards in the Czechoslovakian league before coming over (not the quality of the NHL, but a better league than the Czech league is now). He had also won best goaltender at the World Juniors, and three best goaltender at the World Championships before coming to the NHL as well. It's not like he just magically came of age when he landed in Buffalo.

It is all possible, sure. Alternate-universe Roy could have had a mediocre career for any number of circumstances too.

However, what we do know for a fact is that Hasek won 5-straight top goalie awards in the Czechoslovakian league before coming over (not the quality of the NHL, but a better league than the Czech league is now). He had also won best goaltender at the World Juniors, and three best goaltender at the World Championships before coming to the NHL as well. It's not like he just magically came of age when he landed in Buffalo.

Yup. He had an excellent European and international career before ever getting to the NHL, and then a lot more years after too. (His total professional career was 30 years, only about half of which were spent in the NHL ) Is it possible that, if he'd come over sooner, he would've been mediocre in those years? Sure, I guess. But what he was doing during those years indicates that he would've been at least an above average NHL goalie. Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure what would've happened had Dom been given the opportunity for a longer North American career. But we do know that what he was able to do in Europe and internationally during that time frame was still pretty damn impressive, even if it wasn't against NHL competition.